False Accusations From Beliefs in Sexual Identity

Over the weekend, I encountered the perfect example of “Do Not Judge” all the while realizing anew that some people are carnally-minded meatheads. Friday at work during my last break, I checked the Facebook newsfeed on my phone. One of my friends had commented on a group, and that automatically shows up on the newsfeed. The conversation began very encouraging and inspiring with people affirming biblical equality between straights and gays - that we are all broken sinners in need of a savior.The discussion went from biblical equality between gays and straights into whether same-sex attraction is a choice, is rooted in psychology or what….Rereading the comments, I noticed that when one person used the word “perversion” they connected it to straight sins as well. One person said, “Homosexuality is like adultery or any other sexual sin, a perversion of what God set up.” Adultery is also a perversion. I like that. It makes gay sex the same as straight sins. By and large, as far as I noted, that particular word was absent in the conversation. However, this might be due to the fact that the owner purged membership after people became too angry.

I also believe that homosexuality or same-sex attraction is based upon psychological association, but when I stated that heterosexuality or opposite-sex attraction is likewise based upon psychological association, then the opinions of two or three people went against me.

I don't think that homosexuality is a real identity or that people are born this way. I also don't think heterosexuality is a real identity or that people are born this way. Human sexuality is more than the impulse. Human sexuality involves thoughts, feeling, and beliefs. Because it does involve thoughts, feelings, and beliefs human sexuality is more grounded in psychology and sociology - not biology.

One woman disagreed strongly but politely stating that there is no evidence for a psychological basis on heterosexuality because human existence depends upon it. I would have liked to have continued discussing with her, but I don’t think she commented again. The first paragraphs in my second response did not seem to come across well on second thought, and I’m cutting them out here because this article is simply too long. Carnally-minded men derailed the conversation. I did reply, and these comments caused problems among the men:

Yes, human existence depends upon people of opposite genders mating and producing offspring. However, that does not mean they are heterosexual. It just means they have opposite-sex attraction. The key issue here is how you define people. Do you say that a person has opposite-sex attraction, or do you say that a person is opposite-sex attraction? Do you say that a person has same-sex attraction, or do you say that a person is same-sex attraction?Sexual identity means that people are their desires. If people are their sexual desires, then they need to display and exhibit their sexual desires for personal fulfillment or to "truly be themselves." If people are their sexual desires, then openly displaying the sexual desire would be the only thing that counts. This is why our culture now has its Miley Cyrus twerking, Lady Gaga, etc. These women think that in order to be heterosexual women, they need to flaunt themselves sexually because they need to "be themselves". I hear that gay pride parades are just as flagrant. Sexual identity would be another reason behind this.The same rules must apply for all humans. If same-sex attraction is rooted in psychology or sociology, then opposite-sex attraction must be rooted in psychology or sociology. Now, I had such a normalcy bias toward opposite-sex that it did not occur to me for months how this could develop.Then, the thought occurred to me that this involves kids preferring friends of the same gender. Among the traditional family, kids knew a mom and dad made families somehow. Kids knew there was something "secretly adult" that they had no clue about between mother and father. Kids tended to prefer friends of the same gender and refrained from befriending the opposite gender, even though they knew once they became adults, they would end up wanting the opposite gender somehow in some way. After all, families are made from opposite genders uniting. The "secret adult thing" would happen that brings a man and woman together as husband and wife. When puberty comes and the sexual impulses develop, they grow into adults and leave behind their childhood. Thus, when they reach puberty, they learn what that secret adult thing was, and they know to associate it with the opposite gender. And this is how opposite-sex attraction, what you say heterosexuality, has traditionally developed.

The response I receive is this:

I remain very bewildered by how he came to that response… Okay, I state that animals have sexual impulses. Animals will mate with whatever is close by to relieve those impulses. Then, I state that there is a difference between sexual identity and sexual impulses in humans. Maybe I should have detailed a little more about what makes humans different from animals, but anyway, still don’t see where he is getting his comment. I explain the results of belief in sexual identity - Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, gay pride... I state that all human sexuality is rooted in psychological association including heterosexuality or opposite-sex attraction. Then, I explain how opposite-sex attraction develops through the traditional family..And somehow, this carnally-minded meathead interprets this to mean that I need God to open my eyes so that I can repent of my wrongs… This guy has me very confused here..Okay, first Mitch Graves states: “The scientific data that contradicts your drivel goes back decades and there is NOTHING to suggest anyone who lives as you suggest will have anything but misery.”.First off, I never suggested in my comment how people should live. I merely discussed the psychological association involved in developing opposite-sex attraction..Mitch Graves: “I suggest you read up on the solid psychological link between porn and perversion and extreme violence and suicide.”.Again, what does this have to do with opposite-sex attraction being based upon psychological attraction?Mitch Graves: “The pervert "martyr" Matthew Sheppard was killed by a pervert lover NOT by homophobes.”.Okay, by this point, I’m starting to sense that he has interpreted a psychological analysis of how heterosexuality or opposite-sex attraction develops to be an endorsement of gay sex. And by his word choice, he appears to be very ticked off at the analysis. But how in the world does he come to this interpretation? The only thing I said about gay sex was:

If same-sex attraction is rooted in psychology or sociology, then opposite-sex attraction must be rooted in psychology or sociology.

Mitch Graves: Where I you (and I was) I'd jump right to asking GOD to open my heart and mind to the truth and making a commitment to repent of everything HE shows me is wrong. *IF* you make that commitment HE will answer you and help you come from the deception into REAL joy and freedom..I mean, this is just… quite something else… Mitch Graves has interpreted an analysis of heterosexual/opposite-sex attraction to be an endorsement of gay sex. Mitch Graves has interpreted an analysis of heterosexual/opposite-sex attraction to be a sign that the commenter - me in this case - needs to repent and seek God for guidance. I spoke against the concept of sexual identity. This guy, Mitch Graves, is so carnally-minded that Mitch Graves considers it heresy to speak against sexuality as a personally-fulfilling identity. These comments of his are pretty funny. And then, there is another one by Tim George.

This is amazing in its hilarious content. These two men have jumped to conclusions and have judged me according to things irrelevant to what I have said. These two men have judged me by - I have no clue what standard these two use because their judgment is completely contrary to reality. The judgment of these two men apparently comes from things they imagined about me..Okay, these two accuse me of being anti-Christian and of being ignorant of Christianity. The accusation is false. For one thing, I have a blog on the Christian Post, which you are reading here. Ta-da! I have in my collection three books by Augustine, Eusebius’s Church History, one book by Thomas Aquinas, two books by Lee Strobel The Case series, John MacArthur’s The Jesus you Can’t Ignore as well as Not a Fan by Kyle Idleman and Is God a Moral Monster?, by Paul Copan..I’m name-dropping here, but I’m doing this to illustrate that these two men have judged me contrary to reality. And Mitch Graves tells me that I need God to open my heart to repentance. Seriously?.How do they interpret from a psychological analysis of straight-sex to reach their conclusions? How in the world do they interpret this analysis to consider me not a Christian? How in the world do they interpret from this analysis to consider it an endorsement of gay sex?.And then Tim George comments in agreement with Mitch Graves: “It's no coincidence that people who approve of homosexuality don't understand Christianity. There are the rare few out there who are not Christians yet can see homosexuality for the disgusting perversion it is”.What a bunch of carnally-minded meatheads! What exactly are they worshipping when they consider it heresy for someone to speak against the concept of sexual identity? What exactly are they worshipping when they consider a psychological analysis of heterosexual/opposite-sex attraction as an attack upon their religious beliefs?.The interpretation of these two men is blatantly absurd. Seriously. Do not judge!I have written about gay sex as a sin previously on the blog. I discussed the unintended consequence upon relationships; I discussed scripture that they misquoted and explained scriptural equality; I discussed the slippery slope, which actually began with straight people; I wrote one article just plainly calling it a sin. I have not done so recently, however, but my beliefs remain the same..I have also written articles criticizing and calling out men who preach hatred and condemnation instead of repentance and salvation. I explain how adultery is same as the other sexual sins; I wrote that Paul of Tarsus sought to include everyone as having offended God and everyone as deserving and worthy of salvation; I wrote how Jesus would respond to gays and lesbians by connecting a passage from John with Leviticus 18. Christians have a moral obligation to call out others who do not preach the gospel correctly.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in." (Mathew 23:13)

I never refer to gay sex as a perversion. Calling it a sin is enough. Some people tend to use the words as if to say, “well, there is sin, and then there is perversion,” which creates moral differences as if perversion is worse than sin. All sin leads to damnation. If a person commits worse sins and repents, that person will go to Heaven. If a person commits lesser sins and refuses to repent, that person will go to Hell. There is no reason, therefore, for Christians to obsess in creating moral differences or to obsess over which sins are worse. The only time I did call out one sin as worse than another was when I criticized the liberals’ protesting Louie Giglio for Obama’s inauguration; I stated that sexual slavery is a worse sin than gay sex. Then again, my complaint was not against Christians in that article nor was I attempting to minister to lead people to Christ. Honestly, I doubt those people who protested Giglio care enough about their own salvation; they certainly cared nothing about the salvation of sexually-enslaved women..The term “perverted one” does appear in the New King James translation (Deuteronomy 23:17). Fortunately, there is a footnote that states the original word used is qadesh, which guess what! Also is a ritual harlot! Thanks to the footnotes, readers can see the more accurate translation would be similar to “male ritual harlots“ or temple prostitute. The same verse includes female temple prostitute. Translating the female as a ritual harlot and the male as a perverted one implies that one is worse than the other; such implication is absent from the actual text. That translation implies that only gays can commit perversions, but that implication is simply not in the scripture, and we know this thanks to the footnote and thanks to the entirety of scripture. The only instances in which the word “pervert” can be used has nothing to do with sex.

“A perverse man sows up strife.” (Proverbs 16:28)

Nothing to do with sex. Perversion here refers to anyone who enjoys causing conflicts for the sake of causing conflicts. Perversion here refers to someone who hates peace.

In the book of Deuteronomy, God tells His chosen people: “you shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.” (Deuteronomy 16:19)

Perversion here refers to taking bribes and to destroying the cause of justice.

Paul of Tarsus wrote: “there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.” (Galatians 1:7)

Perversion here refers to anyone preaching a false gospel. This means that Westboro Baptist and all those prosperity preachers are perverts..Now, here I’m simply explaining why I prefer to refer to gay sex as a sin instead of a perversion. The way the word is commonly used today implies that gay sex is a worse sin than other sins. Creating a moral difference between sin and perversion tends to become an excuse for bigotry. Read Luke 18:10-14 if you’re curious about what this looks like. Now, one person in the conversation did say: “Homosexuality is like adultery or any other sexual sin, a perversion of what God set up.” The word is appropriately used there because the sentence lacks any difference between sin and perversion; therefore, there is no excuse for bigotry because we are all the same. The main sentence is “homosexuality is like adultery or any other sexual sin…“ It appears more aligned with the other scripture cited. Unfortunately, that use of the word is rare today among the general populace..Christians should be against bigotry. Bigotry is another form of sin. The two greatest commandments are “Love God, and love your neighbor.” Bigotry is hatred or malice. Neither unrepentant sinners nor self-righteous bigots can go to Heaven.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in." (Mathew 23:13)

Paul of Tarsus wrote:

“Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (1 Corinthians 5:8)

In this verse, the old leaven refers to prior sins and the other leaven refers to bigotry or malice. Let us be unleavened, please..Now, this is a lengthy post… I fear I have been blog-deprived… let’s recap..I had stated that sexual identity is a false identity. It’s fiction. I had stated that if homosexuality or same-sex attraction is rooted in psychology or sociology, then heterosexuality or opposite-sex attraction must also be rooted in psychology or sociology. I explain how heterosexuality/opposite-sex attraction develops through the traditional family..Mitch Graves tells me to seek God who can open my eyes for repentance of my errors. Tim George tells me that I don’t understand the perversion of homosexuality..Basically, these two worship the heterosexual identity. These two worship the carnal things of the flesh. These two hold dear and sacred to their hearts defining people by their sexual desires. If you speak against sexual identity, Mitch Graves and Tom George will label you an anti-Christian heretic..The entire problem with our culture today is that people - both Christians and secularists - define people by their sexual desires. The entire problem is the belief in sexual identity. Sexual identity means that people are their desires. If sexual desires define who people are, then acting upon any/all of those desires becomes personal fulfillment. And this is why we see all types of sexual sin so rampant in today’s culture. People sin sexually because they believe this is who they’re supposed to be and what they are supposed to do. The ultimate cause of sexual sin is the belief in sexual identity..The belief in sexual identity is also why we see a lot of actual bigotry. This belief in sexual identity is why Christians have an incredibly difficult time ministering to gays and lesbians. All sin is to be removed and destroyed from a person‘s life; that is scriptural and biblical. If people are their sexual desires, then to have a sinful desire means that person must be removed and destroyed because then that person is the sin; and this part is contrary to scripture and goes against what the Bible teaches..These two men - Mitch Graves and Tim George - are exactly the same as all those gays and lesbians they condemn. I state that heterosexual is not a real identity, is based upon psychological association. And so, they accuse me of being a gay activist who needs God to open my eyes to perversion so that I can repent... The funny thing is that to another group, I can say the exact same thing about same-sex attraction (homosexual identity not real, based on psychological association) and be accused of being an anti-gay homophobic bigot. I would essentially receive the exact same response from these two self-proclaimed Christians and from gays and lesbians..And in fact, their response is exactly the same as a friend of mine who defines herself as a homosexual. I had glossed over her second comment in the conversation because I disagreed with what she was saying and because I had nothing to respond to it. The first comment is polite and respectful toward Christians. In the first comment, she affirms that even though she disagrees about gay sex being a sin, she will defend our rights to call it a sin. In agreement with the picture, she openly says it is not hate to consider gay sex a sin..When a different woman named Pamela stated that same-sex attraction is based upon psychological attraction, my friend replied very offended and ticked off referencing science.

I had glossed over and forgotten about friend's comment when the conversation first occurred, basically because I disagree with any biological explanation for human sexuality. Scientific studies fail to explain how human sexuality or sexual identity is biological. After the conversation, Friend complained that she had been banned from the group for being gay and banned her despite her openly-stated willingness to defend our freedoms of speech and religion; according to her, that was all she said prior to banishment from the group. Late last night, I rediscovered that comment from the orignial conversation in my email inbox. After reading this second comment, I realize that she brought her banishment upon herself by insulting the intelligence of people who disagree with her. Yes, friend did insult them in her second comment and she did call them offensive, insulting names. I feel offended just reading her second comment...I appreciate her willingness to defend our freedom of speech and of religion. I would do the same for anyone. However, her second comment displays zero respect and zero tolerance for others' beliefs. her second comment is what got her banned from the group. Any and all hateful comments directed toward her have been deleted from the conversation, so she had no grounds for complaints against people after her banishment. It makes me wonder if Mitch Graves and Tim George ever got into trouble and/or were banned for the hateful and false accusations they spewed against me. After all, those two certainly insulted my intelligence and my religious beliefs for the sake of their own so-called religious worship. Mitch Graves, Tim George, and my friend here prove how sexuality and sexual identity have become idol worship in which sexual identity is prized above all else..So, here is what has happened. One or more people state that same-sex attraction is based upon psychological association; the person identifying as homosexual gets raging furious, becomes insulting and offensive, and demands they research science. I state that opposite-sex attraction is based upon psychological attraction; the men worshipping heterosexual identity get raging furious, demand I research science, behave insulting and offensive, and accuse me of being anti-Christian. It’s the exact same reaction!.Until both sides abandon their beliefs in sexual identity, both sides will remain at odds against each other. Until both sides realize the falsity of sexual identity, our culture will continue to deteriorate into selfish, sinful anarchy. Until both sides knock out the concept of sexual identity, then both sides would never learn to respect, appreciate, or truly value each other as human beings meant to be in the image of God.